and here
from link at forty two.
Posted on 07/26/2012 5:42:58 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
In Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference, the Cold Case Posse presented further evidence that Obama's Certificate of Live Birth presented to the public was forged.
One of the points they raised was the presence of handwritten codes next to a number of the informational boxes on the COLB, and suggested that the codes did not match the substance of the information typed into the boxes in certain cases, providing one more indication of digital tampering.
The link for this thread is a Vital Statistics Instruction Manual issued by HEW revised August 14, 1961 which refers to some of the codes used for birth certificates at that time (which was in a link found by freeper Natufian). (Obama was born in early August according to his COLB, so we don't know if this manual or an earlier version was actually used, even if we believe the part of the document on which the codes appear was actually derived from an original 1961 document.)
Discussion so far has focused on the coding for race of the father, indicated as "9" on the COLB.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
One theory offered to explain why Obama presented a digitally-altered COLB is that Grandma Toot originally submitted a half-handwritten, half-typed document (as once described by Linda Fukino to reporter Michael Isikoff). This document was a rather dodgy piece of paper that would raise more questions than it answered if examined closely.
According to this theory, Grandma Toot listed Stanley Ann as the mother and Barack Obama as the father and the address on Kalanianaole Highway where grandparents Stanley and Toot were then living as the address both of the mother and where the baby was born.
Where Stanley Ann really was at the time of birth is a matter of speculation, since she was first seen with the baby in Seattle and the daughter of the family with whom grandparents Stanley and Toot were living does not remember any new-born infant being brought to the house.
This document submitted by Grandma Toot was automatically included in the information delivered by the vital statistics department to the newspapers for recent births, and therefore would explain the appearance of the two newspaper announcements.
Later, however, when it was important for Obama to have a birth certificate that others might look at, it was considered necessary to change this into a normal-looking birth certificate that someone born in a hospital would have.
The “home birth” story was too thin, especially since if anyone interviewed the family with whom the grandparents were living and they said no baby was born in their home, the whole story would collapse. On the other hand, in the case of a maternity hospital, lots of babies were being born there and it would be no problem if no one specifically remembered this particular baby and privacy laws would prevent an examination of the records of the hospital.
If true, then THE INFORMATION OF MOST INTEREST ON THE COLB WOULD BE PLACE OF BIRTH ON THE ORIGINAL UNALTERED DOCUMENT -- WAS IT A HOME BIRTH OR A HOSPITAL BIRTH?
Looking at the Instruction Manual, it indicates on page 14 that a hosptital birth or with a physician in attendance should be coded “1.”
In the case of a home birth, if a midwife attended it should be coded “3.”
If it was a birth at home, and neither a midwife nor a physician was present, then it should be coded “4.”
Turning now to Obama’s purported birth certificate, we see a handwritten code number in the margin immediately to the left of the box in which “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital” is typed.
This handwritten number is cut off and only the right side of the number appears.
However it is clearly NOT a “1” and clearly NOT a “3”.
It looks like the right side of the number “4”.
This would mean the original document claimed a home birth at which neither a physician nor a midwife was present.
This would be one additional point of evidence, in addition to the other evidence presented by Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse, that Obama presented a digitally-tampered birth certificate.
Sheesh. That first line made no sense. Sorry. I meant to say that the full-page Advertiser image at whatreallyhappened came from somebody at the Advertiser office, supposedly from their microfilms, yet when they printed Hoover’s story showing the image (supposedly from their microfilms) it no longer had what I call C&P lines right under the announcement for Norman Asing’s son.
No sense...understood you perfectly....type like my sister talks....BtW send you a frmail to keep you in the loop...an second defense to take down if the BC issue doesn’t
If the BC was accepted by the local registrar on Aug 8, 1961 as Onaka claimed their record says, it could not be a delayed birth certificate. A delayed birth certificate was on a different form and was for births that were reported a year or more after the birth. If somebody reported that birth by Aug 8, 1961 the local registrar would have put the information on a birth certificate form and tried to gather any missing items within the 30 days allowable by statute. If all the REQUIRED items were gathered within that 30-day window, there was no consequence for the extra time (Note: information about the father was not REQUIRED, so a BC would not be considered incomplete just because the father’s info was missing). If the BC was not completed by the end of that time, it would remain unnumbered and “pending”. If the HDOH collected BC’s for a month before numbering them it could have been an attempt to accommodate the 30-day window for BC’s to be completed.
An incomplete BC could be completed any time after that but would have to be marked as “LATE” once it was complete. And whatever was missing had to be significant because it was required, so it would probably be a major administrative amendment and thus require the “ALTERED” stamp as well. And all amendments other than legitimations had to be noted in the last item of the BC, even if “ALTERED” didn’t have to be stamped on the BC.
I’ve seen a BC which notes that a first name was added to the BC within the first 6 months after the birth - an acceptable amendment that doesn’t alter the validity of the BC and thus doesn’t require the ALTERED stamp but does require the amendment to be noted in the blank supplied for that.
I’m basing these comments on the actual Hawaii statutes and HDOH Administrative Rules.
See post 42
Thank you. I'll bet someone has come up with a 1961 newspaper original by now that shows just that.
and here
from link at forty two.
read Butter’s post and thread comments.
sO WHAT DOES IT SAY ON THE COVER PAGE?
Thanks, Hoosiermama.
.
Oops.
Second try.
.
That is definitely a small pencilled question mark below 7d and to the left in the margin. No question about it. The question is why is it there next to where the street address is?
But you didn't stop there.
However, attention should also be focused on one of the other coded items: namely, whether the original COLB listed a hospital birth or a home birth.
You went on as if the revised manual was the one used before it's effective date and you based all of your conclusions based on that.
And you pushed it even further later on!
@ The purpose of this thread is to invite comment on the apparent evidence, based on this source document, that Obama’s COLB was originally coded as a “home birth.”
Your whole argument is completely based on the revised manual being the one used despite your noted objections and you have been fighting for that revised manual to be the only basis for any comments offered.
It says Revised August 14, 1961.
I agree with your assessment. What I want to know is what are your thoughts on that drawn in question mark in the left margin below and to the left of 7d? It’s outside the bracket where the parents street address it. A clearer picture of it is here.
what else does it say?
Well why don't you go read it for yourself and find out?
Or you could just make whatever point it is you're trying to make instead of playing this stupid game.
What are your thoughts on Hawaii being misspelled as Huwaii on Savannah Guthrie's photograph?
for births occuring in 1961
IMO if there is a change in middle of year there should be a notation of such on the page of the change and effective date of the change...
Ebonics 101?
IMO if there is a change in middle of year there should be a notation of such on the page of the change and effective date of the change...
Well if the whole thing was new there wouldn't be any page notices.
Here's a thought...maybe it got changed due to some newfangled equipment being installed!
IBM 1401
That might be an interesting trail to follow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.